2006 (8) TMI 619 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 376 IPC.
2. Application of Explanation 1 to Section 376(2)(g) IPC.
3. Evaluation of prosecutrix's testimony and its consistency.
4. Determination of common intention and concerted action among accused.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 376 IPC:
The accused were initially convicted under Section 376 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. The High Court upheld the conviction of Lalit Gupta and Pardeep Kumar but acquitted Inderjit Singh. The present appeal by Pardeep Kumar challenges this conviction. The prosecution case, as per the FIR, detailed the events leading to the alleged gang rape, including the involvement of multiple accused.

2. Application of Explanation 1 to Section 376(2)(g) IPC:
The prosecution argued that Pardeep Kumar was guilty under Section 376 IPC due to the principle of joint liability, as per Explanation 1 to Section 376(2)(g) IPC. This provision states that if a woman is raped by one or more persons in a group acting with common intention, each member of the group is deemed to have committed gang rape. The court cited precedents like Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and Bhupinder Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh, emphasizing that common intention and concerted action are crucial for applying this provision.

3. Evaluation of Prosecutrix's Testimony and Its Consistency:
The High Court relied on the prosecutrix's initial version and the testimony of Constable Raghubir Singh. However, during the trial, the prosecutrix stated that only Karam Chand and Ashok Kumar raped her, and she escaped before Pardeep Kumar could act. This inconsistency raised doubts about Pardeep Kumar's involvement in the actual commission of rape.

4. Determination of Common Intention and Concerted Action Among Accused:
The court examined whether Pardeep Kumar's presence and actions indicated a common intention to commit rape. The prosecutrix's statement suggested that Pardeep Kumar arrived after the initial acts of rape and was consuming liquor in another room. The court noted that mere presence at the crime scene, without evidence of active participation or prior concert, is insufficient to establish common intention. The absence of specific acts or conduct attributing a shared intention to commit rape further weakened the prosecution's case against Pardeep Kumar.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Pardeep Kumar shared the common intention to commit rape. The inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statements and the lack of concrete evidence of Pardeep Kumar's active involvement led to his acquittal. The conviction under Section 376 IPC was set aside, and Pardeep Kumar was granted the benefit of doubt, resulting in his release.